Dokyun Lee | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

GRACE: Graph-Grounded Reflective Agent Copilot Engine for Expert-in-the-Loop Knowledge Expansion

Large language models deployed in high-stakes settings frequently generate plausible but ungrounded claims. Standard retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines offer limited remedy, since they retrieve isolated passages without tracking cross-document evidence relationships or quantifying uncertainty. We introduce GRACE (Graph-grounded Reflective Agent Copilot Engine), a framework that deconstructs LLM responses into atomic claims and grounds them against trusted knowledge priors within a weighted bipartite graph. Edge weights encode the closeness of each claim to the priors, enabling weighted centrality analysis that classifies claims as Grounded, Refuted, or Boundary. Such classification identifies not just hallucinations but also novel or contested claims at the frontier of the model's knowledge. To efficiently allocate human or agent resources, we formulate a Return on Attention (RoA) objective that defers a claim to expert review only when its priority-weighted uncertainty exceeds the cost of verification. Claims verified by experts are promoted to new evidence anchors, closing a validator-LLM evolutionary loop that expands the knowledge base across iterations. We evaluate GRACE across multiple language models and on datasets spanning both general and domain-specific knowledge. Our results show that our knowledge base serves as a reliable foundation for retrieval that outperforms RAG baselines, and that the RoA framework efficiently selects valuable boundary knowledge for expert verification. These findings demonstrate that graph-structured representations combined with expert-in-the-loop verification can mitigate hallucination at the system level rather than at the generation level. Code available at https://github.com/johnsk95/grace_code

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Item-Mean Surrogates: Why Richer Persona Data Fail to Improve LLMs as Human Surrogates

LLMs are increasingly used as human surrogates, often on the premise that richer persona data could make them substitutes or exploratory tools for specific individuals. We test this premise across four datasets covering more than 400,000 participants and more than 6,000 survey items and experimental outcomes. LLMs perform well at the aggregate level: their average responses closely align with average human responses to the same items. But this success largely reflects predicting each item's average human response. Once each item's human mean is removed, LLM predictions explain only 3.05% of the remaining respondent-specific variation, far below the 53.6% human test-retest benchmark. Richer personas, model variants, and fine-tuning do not close this gap. In variance analyses, once item means are removed, the reliable remaining signal is person-by-item. It captures how a respondent departs from the mean on a particular item and is about 8.9x larger than the stable person effect. Persona data encode the respondent, but not this item-specific deviation. LLM responses also compress human response distributions, using less spread, fewer response categories, and distorted distributional shapes. We call this pattern item-mean surrogacy. Current LLM surrogates can approximate item averages, but not the distributions or respondent-specific deviations needed to replace individual humans. We propose four empirical tests for LLM-based human-surrogate claims.

cs.CL↗